The terrible fact is
that the world has no plan to avoid planetary climate catastrophe or to mitigate
climate change.

The only climate economic or international plans are to
drive us faster to planetary catastrophe. ​​This is the de facto default plan.

As of 2013 governments have stopped negotiating ​​for an agreement to cut emissions and no agreement is expected till 2020. Even then the plan is for the agreement to not be binding (the US has ruled that out) ​and so there is no intention by world powers to ever reduce let alone stop (zero carbon) emissions.

The only thing agreed by nations is 'intended' voluntary emissions targets aimed at 'holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels' (the 2015 UN Paris Agreement). The Paris agreement is no plan because there is no agreement on measures to this. The Paris Agreement gas nothing on terminating fossil fuel subsidies or a global carbon pollution tax. By today's impacts at today' s warming of 1.0C it is clear 2C is a target for total catastrophe and 1.5C disastrous. Even so it also obvious that it is too late to to meet the 2C limit because of today's extreme high atmospheric GHG levels.

Though the 350.org movement has spread awareness that we must get under 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 there is no agreement on any atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to aim for. Also we are now over 400 pm CO2 and all we are doing is emitting carbon as fast as ever.

​​The only plan is to keep burning every kind of fossil fuel as fast as possible, which is now the very worst polluting fuels like more coal, more tar sands, shale oil and plans for liquid coal.

​​

​​

To
avoid planetary climate catastrophe the energy market must shift out of fossil
fuels and into more zero carbon renewables far faster.

This can happen
becuse the market is very sensitive changes fast and is very powerful.
​​

Carbon trading has not workjed
(EU) and cannot work.

A carbon cap means regulation to linit emissions. The corporations oppose such ​​government regulation and it would many years to have any effect at all if ever passed.

That leaves the carbon tax that the corporations say they favour because it could be global and allow level playing field competition to cary on​​. The public now are in favour of carbon taxing though the word tax is not helpful nor accurate.

​​Most economists favour the carbon tax though other economic instruments can also be applied along with carbon taxation. It is not really a tax it is pollution charge or pollution free imposed by governments on the large Central greenhouse gas polluters.

​​​​

The 1992 UN Framework
convention on climate change requires governments to control their greenhouse
gas emissions in order to prevent dangerous interference with the climate
system- which means safe levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Dangerous is clearly and explicitly defined in the convention. There are clear and specific requirements on the industrialised nations to make the switch away from the world fossil fuel economy and into a clean and non-greenhouse gas polluting energy economy of sustainable development.

But this has not happened , ​​ instead governments have pushed harder for more extraction of all kinds of fossil fuels in order to fuel an ever expanding world economy.

​​As the Stern Commission in 2006 explained there can be no solution to global climate change and no prevention of global climate planetary catastrophe without correcting the environmentally perverse economy, which is the cause of constantly increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution by greenhouse gas polluting sources and industries. The Stern Commission explained that because the costs of GHG pollution are not included in our economics (called externalisation by the economists) the resulting global climate change is the 'greatest and most far-reaching market failure ever'.

​​The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes no recommendations and so there is no plan proposed by the IPCC. In fact it appears that the IPCC assumes a continued dependence on burning fossil fuels for energy because all the IPCC scenarios are heavily dominated by fossil fuel energy sources.​​